On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:51 PM Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> wrote:
> The standard only defines an ORDER BY clause inside of an aggregate for > ARRAY_AGG(). As an extension to the standard, we allow it for all > aggregates, which is very convenient for non-standard things like > string_agg(). > > However, it is completely useless for things like AVG() or SUM(). If > you include it, the aggregate will do the sort even though it is neither > required nor desired. > > I am proposing something like pg_aggregate.aggordering which would be an > enum of behaviors such as f=Forbidden, a=Allowed, r=Required. Currently > all aggregates would have 'a' but I am thinking that a lot of them could > be switched to 'f'. In that case, if a user supplies an ordering, an > error is raised. > Should there perhaps also be an option for "ignored" where we'd allow the user to specify it, but not actually do the sort because we know it's pointless? Or maybe that should be the behaviour of "forbidden", which should then perhaps have a different name? My main motivation behind this is to be able to optimize aggregates that > could stop early such as ANY_VALUE(), but also to self-optimize queries > written in error (or ignorance). > > There is recurring demand for a first_agg() of some sort, and that one > (whether implemented in core or left to extensions) would use 'r' so > that an error is raised if the user does not supply an ordering. > > I have not started working on this because I envision quite a lot of > bikeshedding, but this is the approach I am aiming for. > > Thoughts? > For consistency, should we have a similar flag for DISITNCT? That could be interesting to forbid for something like first_agg() wouldn't it? I'm not sure what the usecase would be to require it, but maybe there is one? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
